Towards an Automatic Verification of BPMN Model Semantic Preservation During a Refinement Process

  • Yousra Bendaly Hlaoui
  • Salma AyariEmail author
  • Leila Jemni Ben Ayed
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1077)


In this paper, we present a refinement approach for business processes specified with Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN). The Business process or workflow refinement approach is a step-wise modeling approach which is composed of a set of abstraction levels. Each refinement step corresponds to an abstract level of a BPMN model. For each refined workflow model, we analyze, automatically, the workflow change impact using NuSMV model checker. The change impact concerns the semantic preservation of workflow models during the refinement process. We talk about workflow data and control flow dependencies. To realize this analysis, we have to transform at each level of modeling refinement, the BPMN model to a Kripke structure formalizing, hence, the semantics of the refined business process model.


Workflow BPMN modeling Refinement Change impact NuSMV Kripke structure 


  1. 1.
    Vaz, C., Ferreira, C.: Towards automated verification of web services. arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.2824 (2011)
  2. 2.
    Van Der Straeten, R., Jonckers, V., Mens, T.: A formal approach to model refactoring and model refinement. Softw. Syst. Model. 6(2), 139–162 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cao, J., Zhao, H., Wang, J., Zhang, S., Li, M.: Verifying dynamic workflow change based on executable path. Int. J. Intell. Control Syst. 12(1), 37–44 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rinderle, S., Reichert, M., Dadam, P.: Correctness criteria for dynamic changes in workflow systems–a survey. Data Knowl. Eng. 50(1), 9–34 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Der Aalst, W.M., et al.: Soundness of workflow nets: classification, decidability, and analysis. Formal Aspects Comput. 23(3), 333–363 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bouchaala, O., Yangui, M., Tata, S., Jmaiel, M.: DAT: dependency analysis tool for service based business processes. In: IEEE 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pp. 621–628. IEEE, May 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke Jr., E.M., Grumberg, O., Kroening, D., Peled, D., Veith, H.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2018)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baier, C., Katoen, J.P.: Principles of Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    White, S.A., Bock, C.: BPMN 2.0 Handbook Second Edition: Methods, Concepts, Case Studies and Standards in Business Process Management Notation. Future Strategies Inc. (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ayari, S., Bendali, H.Y., Jemni, B.L.: A refinement based verification approach of BPMN models using NuSMV. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Technologies, ICSOFT 2018, Porto, 26–28 July 2018Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lodaya, K., Sreejith, A.V.: LTL can be more succinct. In: Bouajjani, A., Chin, W.N. (eds.) ATVA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6252, pp. 245–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Younes, A.B., Hlaoui, Y.B., Ayed, L.J.B., Jlassi, R.: Refinement based modeling of workflow applications using UML activity diagrams. In: IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops (COMPSACW), pp. 187–192. IEEE, July 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, H., Cheung, T.Y., Mak, W.M.: Structure and behavior preservation by Petri-net-based refinements in system design. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 328(3), 245–269 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Istoan, P.: Defining composition operators for BPMN. In: Gschwind, T., De Paoli, F., Gruhn, V., Book, M. (eds.) SC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7306, pp. 17–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oliva, G., Milojicic, D., Gerosa, M.A., Smith, V.: A change impact analysis approach for workflow repository management. In: IEEE 20th International Conference on Web Services, ICWS 2013, June 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strecker, M.: Modeling and verifying graph transformations in proof assistants. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 203(1), 135–148 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kherbouche, M.O.: Contribution à la gestion de l’évolution des processus métiers. (Contribution to the business process evolution management). University of the Littoral Opal Coast, Dunkerque, June 2013Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winkler, M.: Managing Service Dependencies in Service Compositions (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Emerson, E.A., Halpern, J.Y.: Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 30(1), 1–24 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ben Fradj, I., Hlaoui, B.Y., Jemni, B.L.: Patterns for modeling and composing flexible workflows from cloud services. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2018, Funchal, 21–24 March 2018, vol. 2 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yousra Bendaly Hlaoui
    • 1
  • Salma Ayari
    • 2
    Email author
  • Leila Jemni Ben Ayed
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Tunis-ElmanerTunisTunisia
  2. 2.LATICE LaboratoryParisFrance
  3. 3.National School of Computer Science ManoubaManoubaTunisia

Personalised recommendations